ABUSE COVERAGE: THE COURT, THE MEDIA AND READERS

As was widely reported and broadcast last week, State Supreme Court Justice Joseph C. Teresi has cautioned attorneys who are involved in court cases related to the sexual abuse of children by priests to avoid media publicity so as not to prejudice a fair trial (see page 1).

What was not so widely disseminated were the court's remarks on the media's coverage of the claims being made against the Albany Diocese. Emphasizing that the court's ruling to caution the lawyers was "not [to] be construed as limiting the public's right to know" and applies "solely to the attorneys," it said: "The Court is very much attune[d] to the fact that many people believe as the absolute truth what is reported in the media, while, in fact, media reports consist of fact, opinion, surmise, speculation, theory and editorializing, sometimes in combination and sometimes separately."

Those comments merit close attention, especially from Catholics, who have endured nearly a year's worth of newspaper articles and broadcast reports about the Diocese's handling of the abuse scandal. While some of the coverage has made important contributions to the public's awareness and understanding of the abuse scandal, of late it seems to have been aimed too often at scandal-mongering.

Too often, the same news is recycled over and over; uninformed opinions have been solicited from people outside the Capital District who have no specific knowledge of what has been happening here; and, whenever possible, the worst light is cast on the Diocese in general and on Bishop Howard J. Hubbard in particular. For example, he is often described, in a shorthand way, as opposing the "one-strike-you're-out" policy regarding abusive priests, which was passed last June when the U.S. bishops met in Dallas. In fact, despite nuanced reservations he voiced at that meeting, he not only voted in favor of the policy but also was among the first bishops to implement it.

The court's caution to the attorneys expressed concern that publicity of that sort -- which we would describe as often repetitive, frequently one-sided and occasionally sensationalized -- will render a fair trial and an impartial jury impossible to attain. The court was also concerned about hyper-emotionalism surrounding the cases. An example is how some media misinterpreted what the court itself actually said. One newspaper described the caution as threatening to "suppress the facts" and leave the public "at greater risk of the trauma of sexual abuse by priests." It is that sort of over-heated coverage that the court is trying to cool off.

Another example appeared in news articles alleging that the ruling will result in the Diocese not being open about priests accused of abuse. On the contrary, the Diocese has been clear that it will continue to inform the public about priests who have been removed from ministry or placed on leave. Indeed, after the court's comments, The Evangelist carried such an announcement.

In recent months, media coverage of the abuse crisis has followed a general pattern: an anonymous person, who was a victim of abuse at the hands of a priest decades ago, lambastes the Diocese for not helping him, or for helping him too little or too much, or for helping him in the wrong way, or for helping him in the wrong location, or for helping him but through the wrong person -- and so on. Sometimes, a reporter asks for the Diocese's response; sometimes, not. Sometimes, when the Diocese does respond, it seems minimal. That is no doubt frustrating to Catholics; indeed, it has been frustrating to The Evangelist when it has sought to cover the scandal and received the same responses.

Many Catholics must have asked themselves, "Wasn't this resolved a year ago? Didn't the Diocese settle these issues then? Weren't policies put in place to end objectionable practices on this issue?" The answer to all those inquiries is yes:

* Yes, the Diocese has adopted the U.S. bishops' Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People;

* Yes, it has expanded its advisory review board to oversee the Diocese's response to abuse claims;

* Yes, it has hired an investigator to look into allegations of abuse;

* Yes, it has hired a victims' assistance coordinator to find out what victims need and provide it insofar as possible;

* Yes, it is inaugurating Virtus, a training program so that diocesan personnel who work with youth know about abuse, how to prevent it and how to recognize it if it ever happens again.

But still more questions are being asked by Catholics: "Why doesn't the Diocese provide better answers to the media? Why does the Diocese come off so badly?" Catholics can begin to answer those questions themselves if they set aside the emotionalism the court detected and reflect rationally on a few realities:

1. A victim has chosen to reveal what he alleges happened in counseling sessions or in confidential conversations. His decision to offer the public his version of events does not mean that the other people involved can morally, ethically or even legally break confidences in order to answer questions posed by a reporter or to refute the victim's version.

2. Several abuse-related lawsuits have been filed against the Diocese. Anyone who has had the misfortune to be the target of legal action knows the initial advice nearly every attorney provides: "Don't say anything." That's a difficult position to be put in. Diocesan personnel could probably answer media questions in depth, refuting false charges, straightening out twisted conversations and otherwise setting the record straight. However, disregarding the advice of counsel, while tempting, is not prudent. So, at times, diocesan spokespeople can only say something like "we cannot comment while this is before the court," and wait for the court to evaluate the facts fairly.

Kathleen McChesney is the new director of the U.S. bishops' Office of Child and Youth Protection. Visiting Boston recently, she was asked about how that archdiocese is responding to lawsuits. The former FBI official said that "when you get to the litigation stage,...there are certain things that lawyers insist on doing to [protect] their client." That, she added, "is not any different from what is done in other types of similar litigation."

3. The attorney who is representing the plaintiffs is often quoted in the media, and it is his clients who are interviewed. It is easy for anyone to assume that he was the source for many of the articles, a surmise that should cause perceptive readers to ask some key questions: "Have the media allowed themselves to be influenced by one side of a lawsuit? Am I getting only one self-interested side of this story? Who stands to gain by this coverage?" As Commonweal, a lay-edited national Catholic magazine, put it in a recent issue: "The media's perspective has largely been shaped by the storylines provided by plaintiffs' attorneys."

What the court said in relation to the trial needs to be considered in a wider sense by Catholics as they read local newspapers and listen to local broadcast media. Catholics need to ask themselves: "Am I approaching the news with wide-eyed gullibility or with squint-eyed skepticism? Do I naively give credence to everything that's printed or broadcast? Does it occur to me that people, including those in the media, often have hidden agendas?"

The answers to those questions will go a long way toward restoring a balance to how Catholics think and talk about the past difficult year.

(02-20-03) [[In-content Ad]]